Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Shri Hargovind Swarnkar vs Union Of India on 21 February, 2023

Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

                                                            1
                            IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
                                             ON THE 21 st OF FEBRUARY, 2023
                                               MISC. APPEAL No. 1204 of 2022

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    SHRI HARGOVIND SWARNKAR S/O LATE
                                 SITARAM SWARNKAR R/O       SH/3/60 PANDEY
                                 BIHAR COLONY NAVALPUR THANA SHIVPUR
                                 DIST. VARANASI (UTTAR PRADESH)

                           2.    SMT. GAYATRI DEVI W/O SHRI HARGOVIND
                                 SWARNKAR R/O SH/3/60 PANDEY BIHAR COLONY
                                 NAVALPUR    THANA     SHIVPUR    DISTRICT
                                 VARANASI (UTTAR PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....APPELLANTS
                           (BY SHRI ASHOK SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE )

                           AND
                           UNION OF INDIA THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER
                           SOUTH   EAST   CENTRAL RAILWAY BILASPUR
                           (CHHATTISGARH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENT
                           (BY SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN TIWARI - ADVOCATE )

                                 This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                             ORDER

This misc.appeal, under section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, has been filed against the judgment dated 07.02.2022 passed by the Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal Bench, Bhopal in Case No.O.A./IIu/BPL/230/2019, by which the claim petition filed by the appellants under section 16(1)/13(1-A) of the Railway Claims Act, 1987 and section 124-A of Railways Act, 1989 has been dismissed on the ground that the appellants Signature Not Verified Signed by: TRUPTI GUNJAL Signing time: 24-Feb-23 4:20:19 PM 2 have failed to prove the untoward incident as well as that the deceased was a bona fide passenger.

2. The case in short are that on 24.10.2018 Roshan Swarnkar was travelling from Ghansor Railway Station to Binaiki by T.No.51704 Nainpur Madan Mahal Passenger train. It was claimed that he was having a valid second class journey ticket. When the deceased was trying to get down at Binaiki Railway Station, he slipped and lost his balance and fell down from the moving train and suffered injuries. Ultimately he succumbed to the injuries in Medical College, Jabalpur. The incident was registered as Marg No.3/18.

3. The respondent denied the claim avernments and pleaded that neither the deceased was a bona fide passenger nor he died in an untoward incident.

4. The Claims Tribunal by the impugned order has dismissed the claim petition on both the grounds.

5. Challenging the finding given by the Claims Tribunal with regard to the untoward incident, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that it is true that in the DRM report, which was relied upon by the respondent, a finding has been given that there is no evidence to the effect that the deceased had fallen from the train and even no ticket was recovered from his body but it is clear from the Rojnamcha Sanha No.405 dated 24.10.2018 recorded at 16:30, it is clear that the deceased had fallen down from the moving train.

6. By referring to another document, which was filed along with DRM report (Ex.R.1), it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that even in the information, which was given to Chief Station Manager Bainiti, it was mentioned that one person has been crushed under the train. Thus, it is Signature Not Verified Signed by: TRUPTI GUNJAL Signing time: 24-Feb-23 4:20:19 PM 3 submitted that in fact the deceased was a victim of untoward incident. Further by relying upon the marg intimation sent by the Ward Boy, it is submitted that in the marg intimation also it has been mentioned that the deceased, who was admitted on account of suffering injuries due to fall from the train, has expired on 18.05.2018.

7. So far as the non-recovery of ticket is concerned, it is submitted that it is well established principle of law that mere non-recovery is not sufficient to hold that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and by relying upon the judgment passed by the Supreme court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi, reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572 and a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case o f Hariram Vs. Union of India, reported in (2015) 1 MPHT 111, it is submitted that since the claim petition was supported by an affidavit of the claimant, therefore, there was no reason for the Claims Tribunal to hold that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger.

8. Refuting the submissions made by the counsel for the appellants, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondent that there is no eyewitness to the untoward incident. Even in the DRM report (Ex.R.1), it was specifically held that the untoward incident has not been proved. So far as the Rojnamcha Sanha, referred by the counsel for the appellants, it is submitted that it is clear from the said Rojnamcha Sanha that it was based on the information given by the relatives of the deceased. It is also not the case that the deceased was accompanied by his relatives and thus it is clear that the Rojnamcha Sanha was not recorded on the basis of the information given by any eyewitness.

9. Furthermore, not a single eyewitness has been examined by the appellant.

10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

11. In the DRM report (Ex.R.1) it has been specifically opined that there is no eyewitness of falling of deceased from a running train. Further, no railway travelling ticket was recovered from the body of the deceased. Along with this report, one Rojnamcha Sanha written by Vinod Sahu, ASI, Railways Security Force, Gwarighat has been annexed, which is based on the information by the relatives of the injured. None of the relatives of the injured has deposed before the Claims Tribunal that they had seen the incident. The affidavit of Ashutosh Kumar Dwivedi is to the effect that the deceased had purchased a ticket. The appellant Hargovind has also not claimed himself to be an eyewitness to the incident. Therefore, it is clear that the appellants have failed to prove that the deceased had died because of untoward incident.

12. Under these circumstances, the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal to the effect that the deceased did not die in an untoward incident, does not call for any interference.

13. As a consequence thereof, the judgment dated 07.02.2022 passed by the Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal Bench, Bhopal in Case No.O.A./IIu/BPL/230/2019 is hereby affirmed.

14. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE TG /-